**6. Conclusions**

Taking Lin'an District in Hangzhou City in the hilly areas of northern Zhejiang Province as an example, this research constructed a measurement model for land-use conflict by using the landscape ecological risk assessment model method. The land-use conflicts between agricultural space and ecological space were identified and analyzed, and trade-off mechanisms for land-use conflict were proposed. The main conclusions are as follows:

Land-use conflicts are a direct driver of the changing land-use structure of agricultural and ecological spaces in Lin'an District. The degree of land-use conflict in Lin'an District from 2008 to 2018 was generally dominated by controlled conflict. However, with continuous urbanization, the degree of land-use conflict showed an increasing trend, the expansion trend of uncontrolled spatial units was clear, and the distribution area of controlled spatial units decreased continuously.

The comprehensive index of land-use conflict showed significant and positive global spatial autocorrelation and clear spatial aggregation effects at the 99.9% confidence level. Except for the non-significant spatial units, the other spatial units were mainly highly aggregated (*p* = 0.05), and the spatial unit clustering and significance for land-use conflict were the most prominent in 2013.

The characteristics of land-use conflict were obviously different among areas with different topographies. The conflict levels in the low-, medium- and high-slope areas were all dominated by basic controllability. The slope was negatively correlated with the degree of land-use conflict, with uncontrolled conflict being most evident on low slopes and the distribution of basically controllable spatial units being absolutely dominant on medium and high slopes.

To characterize land-use conflict in Lin'an District, this research proposed specific trade-off mechanisms of land-use conflict from five perspectives. These mechanisms provide a theoretical basis and practical support for the control of conflicts between agricultural space and ecological space.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, J.Z. and M.G.; methodology, J.Z., and M.G.; software, Y.C.; formal analysis, J.Z.; writing-original draft preparation, J.Z.; writing-review and editing, Y.C., C.Z.; B.H.; and M.G.; writing-review and editing, Y.C., C.Z, and M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This work was financially supported by the Project Supported by the Open Fund of Key Laboratory of Urban Land Resources Monitoring and Simulation, Ministry of Natural Resources (KF-2020-05-073), the Project Supported by the Open Fund of Technology Innovation Center for Land Spatial Eco-restoration a Metropolitan Area, Ministry of Natural Resources (CXZX202010), supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2021QN81014).

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

